Talk:Succession to the British throne

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2023

On the British Monarchy website, the line was updated to include "Ernest". Can you please add a "B" next to Ernest's name? Please 2601:40A:8400:5A40:40B2:A724:1286:D425 (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC) 

Counsellors of State

The new Counsellors of State Act 2022 appointed two additional Counsellors of State, bringing the count up to seven (until one of them passes on). This article should be edited to reflect that. 155.95.101.64 (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Done. I think it was worth adding that just so that people aren't misled into thinking Anne and Edward are counsellors because of their position in the line of succession. Richard75 (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Order of sections

Aren't people more likely to come to this article to find out about the current line of succession than the history of the subject? Richard75 (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I was about to make the same point. I think the line, which will be the most sought for section, is best placed at the top. DrKay (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Some people are interested in that, but others are historians or lawyers or whatever. Current status is mentioned first to peak the interest of those curious in the "who's-on-deck" part, but then the history is explained more in depth. After that, the complete current situation is detailed in full. I think that's a better set-up. I think that even casual readers interested in learning the 25th-in-line should be able still to find it, right? —GoldRingChip 22:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Let me add… some readers (like me) will find this article by reading about the succession acts of the Tudor era and the issues leading to the Glorious Revolution and the Hanoverian succession. —GoldRingChip 22:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Extension of List

I think it would be useful to complete the list to the point where all the descendants of King George V were listed. This would include the descendants of his only daughter Mary, Princess Royal, the Countess of Harewood. I would suggest including the Harewood/Lascelles line to accurately complete the list of King George V's descendants. Thank you. 161.185.196.125 (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how that's possible without strong reliable sources. DrKay (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, we're talking about the descendants of one person, to complete the hereditary line of George V. This includes her six living grandsons and their descendants. Surely there's a source thru Debrett's or Burke's. The 7th Earl of Harewood was the first cousin to Queen Elizabeth II. These are not distant relations. 161.185.198.114 (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

For a start, two of those living grandsons are not in line. Nor are their descendants. At least two of the present earl of Harewood's children are excluded too. It's not a simple matter. DrKay (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The fact that you know all that, makes it seem that this is pretty easy and well known. Don't let the Lascelles infidelities get in the way of the truth. There have been illegitimates in the royal family since the beginning. 161.185.198.235 (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

And illegitimacy disqualifies someone from the succession to the Crown, so they wouldn't be on this list anyway. Richard75 (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

None of the people I mentioned are in law illegitimate. They are the offspring of married couples, so there's no "infidelities" to avoid. DrKay (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

It may sound easy but it means tracking births that happen every year of people who may be pretty obscure. We should leave it to Debrett's and Whitaker's when it comes to additions that are that far down the line.Wellington Bay (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Excessive detail of English succession?

As this article is about the "British" succession, is it appropriate to keep expanding the details of the "English" succession here? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a serious imbalance between the weight given to the English and Scottish histories, which certainly needs to be addressed, but that should be done by expanding the Scottish section. The reason I added content to the English history section was because it started in 1485, as if nothing happened earlier, which was absurd. Richard75 (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Genetic dead ends in the current line of succession

The section called ''current'' line of succession has some people who are not currently in the line of succession and who don't have any descendants in the line of succession. Removing this was deemed ''controversial''. Why are Edward VIII and Prince William of Gloucester included but not Prince John of the United Kingdom? All three are not currently in the line of succession and don't have any descendants in the line. At what point should someone be removed from the list or do we keep piling up people indefinitely? Similar pages about other countries don't keep exhausted genetic lines and this one shouldn't either. I invite other editors to reply with their own thoughts. Killuminator (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Charles III isn't in the line of succession but is included because it helps to show why the others are in line. The line of succession is after all based on family relationship.

At this point however, the line includes more people than are reliably sourced and should be trimmed. For example the source for 53 and further in line is from 2021, but everyone's position has changed since the late Queen's death. TFD (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The monarch is always included in these types of lists because the heirs have to be traced to the monarch from which their claim derives. Nobody in the line of succession derives their claim from these contentious inclusions and they should be removed. I agree on your point that the line is excessively long. I'd restrict it to descendants of Elizabeth II. Killuminator (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I would restrict it to people whose position in the line of succession can be reliably sourced. I don't understand btw your argument that the king must be included because heirs trace their claim to him. That's not necessarily true. George I became king because his mother was named heir. TFD (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

And his mother was named heir because she descended from previous monarchs but George I and she don't matter because for the purposes of this discussion, otherwise this section on the page would have thousands of entries. Killuminator (talk) 06:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

How on earth would you show the Prince of Wales on this list without showing the King?! I agree with Killuminator that we don't need to include deceased people without descendants. But I think we can have a wider list than descendants of Elizabeth II. The whole list is sourced. Richard75 (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Suppose a new succession act places the crown on a new person. That person has four children, the second of whom is deceased childless. The succession chart would look strange if they were not shown.

The best way to simplify the chart is to use a reliably sourced line of succession that assigns numbers to everyone in line. TFD (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I actually just looked at the Debrett's link and everyone on our list is also on that list, which was updated at least in 2023 to add Ernest Brooksbank. Piratesswoop (talk) 00:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll tag more people who edit these types of articles to see what they think. @DrKay @Surtsicna @Estar8806 @Srnec Feel free to tag more. Killuminator (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that the only reason William of Gloucester is included in this list is his appearance in the 1952 list. I tracked down the corresponding diff: [1] Since this list is over 70 years old, which is quite old for current biographical data, and we now have another monarch, we could replace the 1952 list with a 2022 list, if one exists, or drop it altogether. Those on the 1952 list who are not descendants of George V are already excluded from the list. With this change, we should drop "dead ends" that have no relevance to the current line of succession and no longer appear in any current source. On the other hand, I advise against the removal of Edward VIII, as it may confuse readers when a reigning monarch is missing from the backtrace of the line of succession. I also advise to not restrict the current line to a more limited scope, as long as current up-to-date reliable sources maintain this list at a reasonable length. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

That all seems sensible to me. Richard75 (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

That seems like an arbitrary distinction. What about heirs presumptive who become replaced by heirs apparent, people who lose their position for various other reasons or princes of Wales who die before they become king?

Curiously, Victoria's initial ascension was not secure because of the possibility that a son or daughter could be born to the widow of one of her late uncles. TFD (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I am afraid I do not really understand your point here. Please elaborate if I am wrong. Of course we need to trace the line of succession from the earliest common ancestor to the current monarch in an understandable way. A Prince of Wales who never became monarch and had no descendants is in general not relevant to the current line of succession. If your last comment is an argument against the removal of William of Gloucester: He died 52 years ago and was never married. I think we can safely assume that he will no longer produce a legitimate heir. However, if he does, we could put him back in the line. As always, the best way is to stick to the reliable sources and not to start any synthesis on hypothetical cases. -- Theoreticalmawi (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The article presents the line of succession as a family tree for which reliable sources exist. Alternatively, we could present it as a numbered list, as some sources do. Either alternative is acceptable.

I oppose a hybrid version where we use a family tree and develop criteria for removing some members since it is original research. It could give the false impression that people who failed to produce heirs never existed. TFD (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification. It didn't came to my mind that this could be understood as a complete family tree. To avoid any confusion, I would propose to add a short explainer and refer to Family tree of the British royal family for the full family tree. Showing the relation in such a list, which is, by law, based on relation, is in my opinion, very helpful to understand the list. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

But don't you agree that omitting names from the family tree would require editorial judgment, which is OR? For example, some members listed on the Royal Family website are considered to be excluded in other reliable sources, hence their heirs would also be excluded. Although perhaps unlikely, there could be heirs that are unknown, or members made ineligible for various reasons. TFD (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The family tree of the British "royal family" should include people that are royal by law (as determined by letters patent). Otherwise we would have to add the names of thousands of people who are/were descendants of monarchs. This is not editorial judgment, this is common sense. On the other hand, you don't have to be royal yourself to be in the line of succession. You just need royal ancestry. And if a person is dead with no living heirs there would be no point in including them in a line that is supposed to feature living people who have the prospect of sitting on the throne. As to why we have listed living people who themselves are barred from inheriting the throne: Because their heirs can still be included in the line, as has been the case for Nicholas Windsor's children. Keivan.f^Talk 19:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Someone placed questions marks for them so there's a chance that their inclusion is original research. If the parents are Catholic, there's a high likelihood the children are too but their remote position in the line of successions makes this hard to verify. Killuminator (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

We just have to follow the sources, and in this case the other two sources include them in the line. Obviously, children tend to follow the same religious beliefs as their parents or siblings but that's not always the case. Amelia Windsor is indeed in line to the throne but her siblings are not. This will be more clear when the said children reach the age of maturity. Keivan.f^Talk 20:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The proposal is only about removing people who are not relevant to the line of succession, from a list of people in the line of succession, because they are dead and have no living descendants. That's not OR. Richard75 (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we should remove William of Gloucester as irrelevant to the current line of succession. I think we should remove the 1952 citation because it was only added by a now indefinitely-blocked user in an attempt to extend the list to the Harewoods[2] and we've already come to the consensus not to include them. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Should we just proceed with removing William of Gloucester's name then? It appears that the majority think its inclusion is of no use. Keivan.f^Talk 12:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but I think also at the same time we should remove the 1952 succession notes as well. It was relevant during the Queen's reign but isn't really needed now. And it was the only reason William was on this list. Richard75 (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)